The Megyn Kelly Show - Justin Baldoni's Lawyer Says He Won't Settle with Blake Lively, and What Comes Next in the Case, with Bryan Freedman | Ep. 1092

Episode Date: June 12, 2025

Megyn is joined by attorney Bryan Freedman, who is representing Justin Baldoni, to discuss a federal judge's decision to dismiss his client's defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively, the legal grounds for the ruling, what parts of the case remain, how Baldoni feels about the judge's decision, how the legal battle has impacted his career, what comes next in the fight, when Lively could be deposed, whether Ryan Reynolds will also have to sit for a deposition, Taylor Swift's role in the case, why Baldoni is prepared to go to trial, and more.Lumen: Visit https://lumen.me/MEGYN for 10% OffTax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/MEGYN to speak with a strategist for FREE todayDone with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.comFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow 

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Well, no sooner did we wrap our individual take on what happened in Baldoni versus Lively, then my friend and lawyer, Brian Friedman, and I managed to connect. And he's got all sorts of thoughts on what actually went down with this judge dismissing part of his counterclaims and agreed to come on the show. So here I am live from my European vacation back with Brian Friedman to bring you the story straight from the source's mouth. There's no one better to talk to about what actually happened here than the man who represents Justin Baldoni

and who's been out there fiercely defending him and waging war against Blake Lively, who he believes is not a good person and does not believe her claims. When your metabolism works perfectly, you feel the benefits in so many aspects of life. And that's why I want to tell you about Lumen. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. The app lets you know if you are burning fat or carbs and gives tailored guidance to improve nutrition, workout, sleep, and even stress management. Just breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning, and you will know if you are burning fat or carbs and more. You even get a personalized nutrition plan after your daily measurements. Breathe into it before and after

workouts and meals for even more tips to stay on top of your health game. Your metabolism is how your body turns the food you eat into fuel that keeps you going. And optimal metabolic health translates to easier weight management, improved energy levels, better sleep, and more. The warmer months are here. Prioritize your health and fitness with Lumen. Go to lumen.me slash Megan to get 10% off your Lumen. That's L-U-M-E-N dot me slash Megan for 10% off your purchase. Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode. Brian, great to see you. Thanks for doing this.

All right, so give us your overall take on this federal district court judge dismissing large portions of your counterclaims against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, the New York Times, and this PR agent who represented the couple. Sure. First of all, great to see you.

And I'm sorry to interrupt your vacation. I hope you're having a great time. So far, so good. And the last time I... Thanks. The last time I was with you, actually, was the last kind of disaster in LA, which were the LA fires.

I think it was March 7th. And we were the L.A. fires. I think it was March 7th. And and we were we were on together. And so, you know, yet another crisis in L.A. and and I'm here. So I don't think there's any coincidence. But my take on what the judge did was the judge simplified things. And, you know, while, you know, we're not pleased that he got rid of the defamation causes of action. You know, the truth was the case was never really about, you know, defamation. And while it's in our while it's our response and it's while it's a portion of our claims, you know, from the very start, this case was about somebody being wrongfully accused. And that's Justin. And and it's also been about Melissa Nathan and her team at TAG and about Jen Abel and and herself and about her being wrongfully accused about a smear campaign. And the reality is, you know, when you, you know, what I believe is going on is that the judge,

you know, is getting through all of this and saying, hey, we're going to parrot this down to really what the issues are in the case. And I don't want collateral stuff going on. I just want, you know, answers to the key questions, right? Was there sexual harassment? You know, clearly no. And, you know, answers to the key questions, right? Was there sexual harassment? You know, clearly no. And, you know, was there a smear campaign? And that's no also.

So that's what I really think when you pare it down the law and all of that to what the judge is trying to do here. What do you make of the victory lap she and her lawyers are taking, claiming absolute vindication, calling the counterclaims basically a sham, saying the judge saw right through them, and Blake Lively out there thanking the 19 organizations who filed briefs on her behalf. Right. Well, you know, without getting into detail on that, I mean, first of all, the judge made clear that he didn't read the briefs. The judge made clear that he didn't rule on 47.1, which she's going around and celebrating

a victory. Let's explain what that is. 47.1 was the California statute that is a new statute that she took the position that you couldn't defend yourself by filing a claim against an accuser concerning sexual harassment or sexual assault which you know in in most cases is a really important law in most cases it is a really important conceptual case, and it really protects the victims. But, you know, you got to ask yourself here, who's the real victim? The real victim is Justin and the others, and it's because they've been wrongfully accused.

And ask yourself, you know, when you've been in a situation where you've been wrongfully accused, you know, how do you defend yourself? Are you allowed to defend yourself are you allowed to lead with truth because that's all that's been done here is putting everything out in a website putting everything out for the public not hiding anything and saying here it is was there sexual harassment was there a smear campaign and 47.1 seems to say this new California law, if you're an alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault or hostile work environment plaintiff, and somebody who you've

accused comes back at you saying, I didn't do it. And what you're alleging is defamatory of me, thanks to this statute, that person defending themselves saying I didn't and what you say is defamation can get in a lot of trouble potentially, could have to pay that person's legal fees if the counterclaim gets dismissed, could have to pay triple the legal fees potentially and punitive damages. So the California statute almost makes it like extremely dangerous for someone in Justin Baldoni's position to actually defend himself against a sexual harassment complaint.

Well, it's not dangerous if you know you're right. So this case has always been about facts. It hasn't been about victory laps. It hasn't been about Saturday Night Live tours. It hasn't been about victory laps it hasn't been about saturday night live tours it hasn't been about the people 100 um you know or the time 100 you know it hasn't been about uh the show and it hasn't been about um you know the the misrepresentations it's been about the facts you know we've got we've been in this case for a while now. You know, have we seen, you know, text messages? Have we seen evidence? Have we seen

receipts? No. You know, you've only seen them from one side and it's been out there. And what we've seen from Blake Lively is her showing, you know, who she really is. And the truth is, you know, that there's a famous quote that says, when people show you who they are, believe them. Maya Angelou. Yeah. So what what did you make of the judge? Because you say it's clear he didn't read the briefs. I have to say, I was surprised at some of the sweeping language in there. For example, him saying, well, Justin Baldoni, you can't really sue him. He can't sue Ryan Reynolds for defamation because when you sue a public figure, when you are a public figure suing for defamation, you have to meet the New York Times versus Sullivan Standard showing that the person who defamed you did it with actual malice, meaning they knew it was false when they said it.

This would be Ryan Reynolds saying false things to WME, the agency, that he got to break up with Justin. So he knew the things were false or he behaved with reckless disregard for their falsity. And the judge seemed to say anything he heard was from his wife. So he couldn't have known it was false. At worst case scenario, he was mistaken. And therefore, your claims against Justin need to be dismissed, though a couple of those have been granted leave to refile.

I just don't understand that because there is evidence that Ryan Reynolds had direct interactions with Justin, with Blake, with Taylor Swift. I don't get that part, Brian. Yeah, well, I think it's a nuance in the law that you're aware of, but public figures who sue for defamation

have to prove malice. What the judge essentially said as you read the order is that there can be no malice here because the allegations arose from the CRD complaint, which is a protected document as a legally filed document. The civil rights complaint that she filed to kick this whole thing off and then leak to the New York Times, clearly. Go ahead. That's right. And we don't agree with that at all. We think there's so much collateral action that happened here factually that. They had a video that they put together. These things are not directly taken from the CRD complaint. And, you know, and the court,

you know, addressed that in its own way. And, you know, the court, you know, the court was very matter of fact about that. I don't think the generally judges or courts like when media is sued. They certainly don't like when public figures sue for defamation. The standard is higher. It does require malice. I think in this case, there's a lot of arguments on why there is malice. But again, I get back to why are we here? And what are we really, you know, proving here? And the truth is, it's two things. It's, did he sexually harass her?

And is, you know, was there a smear campaign? And again, you know, we can, it's a bummer. And, you know, and I feel really upset about the fact that, you know, compensation in the form of damages as a result of defamation is not possible at the moment for him. I'm sure, you know, they will both say things in the future that will bring this back to life. I have no doubt. Right. Can I ask you about, you mentioned 47.1, this law in California that kind of protects someone even alleging sexual harassment from getting sued for defamation. In other words, if the defamation it applies and Justin has to pay before we ever even get to discovery in this case, Brian, does he have that kind of money? And what are the odds that the judge is going to impose that hefty penalty on him? Well, you know, I'm not at

liberty to talk about his finances, but suffice it to say that that I doubt many people have that kind of money. But, you know, but I think the you know, the distinction in this case is is that sometimes the law does not take into account morality and you know while this particular um statute is is a good statute in in cases where it's important and it matters and where there's someone who's bullying the victim and and i want to take that really seriously because i think it's really important and justin feels it's really important but where it it doesn't apply is a case where somebody has created allegations that do not rise to the level of sexual harassment. And we now know exactly what those allegations are. We have a specific understanding of what those allegations are.

We've seen video that shows exactly what happened in the scene that she said was so inappropriate. And we've seen, you know, the text messages about coming to my trailer. We've seen the evidence that directly refutes the allegations of sexual harassment. So in this case, you know, from our perspective, there's not nearly the risk that there would be in a case where it was used for bullying. In this case, it's truly about trying to prove that you didn't sexually harass someone. And why, with his career destroyed at the moment, why is he not allowed that right to defend himself and to be able to say this is not okay? Does the judge get to take any of that into account? Because she's

moving. Her team has made clear they're going to move to get all of her fees behind this motion to dismiss recovered from Justin. And I'm sure they're going to ask for them to be trebled or tripled and possibly punitive damages, which just seems insane to me. But will the judge be able to consider what we know to be the evidence in the case just from all you've done even pre-discovery to put together what really happened here? Does he get to even consider any of that? Or do you actually think there's a real shot Justin could be on the hook for this woman's attorney's fees times three? Well, I think the judge has to look at this

statute, which is a brand new statute, which there's absolutely no case law on, which hasn't been challenged at all. And the judge is either going to or not going to make a determination as to whether it applied or not. So far in the ruling. The judge specifically said that he did not take that statute into consideration, but he did, you know, welcome the parties to file, you know, briefs on trying to recover their attorneys fees, including using 47.1 as an argument. I believe because the ruling wasn't a part of that and the judge didn't rule on it, it's moot and it doesn't apply. But, you know, there's a chance that the judge could consider that. I think it's also a statute that's completely untested. And we have to ask ourselves, you know, where there are good laws that help to protect good people. When does it go too far that your constitutional rights are taken away? And when does it go too far that they're

taken away in a way that punishes you so severely for trying to defend yourself and saying, this is not okay, and this defames me? Can you just speak to what you think her strategy was here? I mean, was it, I'll file this civil rights division complaint, and then my allegations will be protected, undermining any attempt to sue me for potentially defamatory statements. And then I will leak it to the New York Times, so it will get out there. And then everyone will know that I'm the victim here, as opposed to the narrative that existed prior to her filing that complaint, which was, she seems like a real bitch, and she is tone deaf on domestic violence, and she seems to have blown up her movie for no apparent reason. Those were the buzz. That was

part of the buzz going around about her. She bullies reporters. That was also part of it. So is that your theory of the case, Brian, that she launched this whole thing in her own effort at PR spinning control? I, I believe what happened in the case, and it's pretty clear, right, is that, you know, press came out, that was negative toward Justin. But, you know, these, you know, whether it's Internet sleuths who are amazing or whether it's, you know, amazing reporters went back in time and pulled videos and pulled, you know, information. And, you know, generally videos don't lie, right, about how you've behaved in the past. And they pulled that information. They put that information out, whether it was the Christie flaw, you know, video, or whether it was other videos,

whether it was the videos where she said, here's what I do. I just, you know, misrepresent what I'm, you know, I'm trying to get a role. And then I take over the film and, you know, or any of that stuff. I think that reporters and other people in the media played

that for people and people had a reaction to it. And there was an organic response as a result of that. I think that was too much for her. It was too much for her to believe that somebody could actually not like her based on her own belief, her own conduct. I think that was something that that that she couldn't handle, whether that's a you know, whether that's an interesting narcissism quality or otherwise. I don't know. Not a doctor. But but I can tell you this, that the the result of it was her scurrying around trying to blame someone else for why her own behavior seemed to be the cause of people not liking her. And that spiraled into something that, you know, was completely out of control. I mean, whenever do you see someone, you know, make a red carpet walk and go out in the press and bring all of their friends into this and make this situation bigger than what

it is. Is this good for her? Is this good for her career? Is this good for her children? Is this good for her family? You know, you have to ask yourself at some point, everybody has a part in everything, right? Is she capable of taking responsibility for her part in this and owning that? We haven't seen that yet. And that's why many people out there are finding evidence about how she's behaved, how she's treated reporters, how she's treated people, how she's treated individuals, how she's treated waiting staff and others and saying, it's not OK. We don't like you. She's a bully. That's my own conclusion. She's an obvious bully who can't take any rounds of negative press, which is so absurd. You and I both know that public figures, many of whom you've defended, including yours truly, have to take tons of negative press.

And it's just part of being a public figure. It's not pleasant, but to try to ruin a man's life over one mild round that she had to suffer when this movie came out is just insane. That's, to me, clearly what she's doing. Can I ask you about what remains? Because my own take was, so the civil extortion claim is gone. The defamation claim is gone.

The false light invasion of privacy claim, counterclaims, I should say, by Justin against her and the related parties are gone. But what's left? Because I heard you say it's four claims. I thought it was just the tortious interference and the breach of the covenant

of good faith and fair dealing. Insofar as he's alleging that Ryan Reynolds messed with his relationship with Ari Emanuel over at WME. Like if that happened and they interfered with Justin's agency relationship, you still have a claim. Where am I wrong? How is it bigger? Well, it's bigger because there's an intentional interference with contract, which is against Blake and Ryan, that the judge gave us a roadmap to replete. There's intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and that goes beyond just a

contract. It goes to the heart of, you know, are you going to be able to work again? There's negligent interference with prospective economic advantage against Blake and Ryan, and there's something called breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Blake only. And those claims are being repled. The judge, again, gave us a roadmap on how to replete those and what the judge would like to see. We are doing that now and working through that. And those are significant claims. But nothing is as significant as taking her deposition, going through that process, getting the witness testimony and the witnesses deposed, and going into the courtroom and showing

the truth to show that there was no sexual harassment, nothing is more important than that. And you think that deposition could take place as early as when? It's been noticed in June. We'll see, you know, when she actually decides to appear. And and, you know, but I assume that it will take place before August 15th because that's the close of discovery of that type. Are you going to get Ryan as well, Ryan Reynolds? We'll see. I mean, you know, obviously he's defending the case. So, of course, we're going to notice his deposition. And, you know, and the judge has clearly indicated that the judge would like to limit discovery and limit the collateral issues in the case. We think there's really important issues that there needs to be discovery on.

And those will be some of the battles along the way that we will have. But, you know, there's no substitute for the truth. And from the beginning, this has been about facts, facts, facts, right? Put them out there. Where is the evidence? Where are the receipts? Put them out there so that people can see the truth. This is about someone who's had their career destroyed and trying to build that back.

How did Justin take the news, Brian? It's a having practiced law. I know it's never great when you get a decision like this one. How's he feeling? You know, I think that injustice is a word I think I can best describe it. A lack of understanding.

If she said these things about me that were untrue, how come I don't have a legal redress in terms of defamation? If this, you know, and you know, it's clear, the evidence is clear that they secreted to get the information on this Van Zandt subpoena and created this whole Doe lawsuit and got that information so that no one could see it and then use that information so that they could put together this hit piece in the New York Times. And that was devastating for Justin. It was,

you know, if anybody remembers what December 21st was like for him, there was 100 percent of the people saying he's a horrible person and zero percent. Well, except for me, who actually saw him on a day to day basis and and his family, you know, who really were on his side until we put out the facts, until we put out the receipts, until we put out the documents, you know, because this has always been about facts and truth. And and and and it's you know, it's frustrating for him who knows exactly what he did and didn't didn't do. Did he acquiesce too much to her demands? Absolutely, because he was afraid. But that's very different

than whether he sexually harassed her. Is his career in ruins? Are people not offering him jobs? Is he not able to get funding for an additional picture? You know, he's lost jobs. It has affected his career at the moment. It's obviously affected him emotionally and his self-esteem and and, you know, and he's putting up the best face he can for his family and whatnot. But but all he wants is truly a chance, a courtroom and a jury to be able to tell his story to, you know, he's not going around

on red carcass. He's not going around, you know, you know, with interviews. He's not going around on some victory tour, even when she dropped her emotional distress claims or were in the process of dropping her emotional distress claims. And, you know, they they have an interesting ability to go on victory tours, whether they win or lose. So it doesn't even matter. I could see her losing the case and going on a victory tour. But that's, you know, that's what we're dealing with, right? When people show you who they are, believe them. And we think that plays well. She was, she's being forced to drop her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress

because she refused to fork over her medical records when you rightfully asked for them. Any defense lawyer would. If you're getting sued for that claim, you say, okay, show me all your mental distress evidence, including your psychiatric records and anything else that would support this claim. And as soon as you guys did that,

she said, nevermind, I'll withdraw the claims. But I want them withdrawn without prejudice, so I can file them at any point in the future if I change my mind. What did you make of how the judge handled that? Because he seemed to say, you're not getting away with that, sister. That's not happening. He seemed to say, you guys come up with an agreement on how this is going to get disposed of that is not going to let her get away with keeping that sword hanging over Justin the whole time and also maintaining the position of you don't get to see a single record of me with my therapist. Well, the great thing about the law is when you're the plaintiff, you have a burden to prove your claims and to prove your damages and as part of that any anyone that claims emotional distress is required to provide evidence of that emotional distress

apparently you know she didn't think the law applied to her so she decided that she was not going to provide that information and whether it existed or, she wasn't going to comply with that rule. And, you know, I think things are still being worked out amongst it. But she, you know, when she makes a decision like that, there are consequences that attach to it. You can't just decide that you're going to refile at a later time. You can't just decide that, let me get through this discovery phase and then I'll put this back on. Right. That's not how it works. Right. The law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. But, you know, some people some people believe that it should not. What's happening to the extent you can tell us with Taylor Swift,

because there was some reporting that you wanted to get the text messages between Blake Lively and Taylor and that because Blake Lively's threatening my daughter, Taylor Swift, that if she doesn't speak out on Blake Lively's behalf, that Blake Lively's gonna retaliate in some way. So tell us what you can. Sure, just out of respect for, you know, people that aren't parties to the lawsuit, there's not a whole lot that I can get into. But, you know, I think that that people who are relevant to the case and people who,

you know, have otherwise been with people from the beginning of the case, side by side, shoulder by shoulder, you know, are potentially witnesses in the case. And so, you know, those are things that we need to look into. Those are things to see, you know, what in addition to what we know already we need and then to move forward and obtain that discovery. There's a short leash on how far we can go with discovery. I think the judge has made it very clear that third parties need to be directly relevant to claims. And we think certain third parties are directly relevant, but it's just whether or not you need that evidence in addition to what you have already.

Are you able to say whether you believe or have reason to allege that Blake Lively threatened Taylor Swift if she did not come out and speak on Blake's behalf? The truth is, I don't think I should speak on it. I think we should wait and see, you know, have the evidence, you know, ferrets out on that. I think, you know, look, look, I think we've all you know, those who have looked at the timeline, those who have looked at all of the documents that that have been put forth. There's more video evidence. I mean, there's there's video of this whole this is a film shoot. Right. Like there's there, there's filming of the film shoot, right? I mean, you, you know, Megan, you saw the scene, um, you know, where they're dancing and, and everyone can judge for themselves again, you know, dealing with, you know, we're dealing with people who look at a scene and say, the sky is not blue. What do you mean? That blue is not blue. And I think that will forever be

the case. But fortunately, she doesn't get to be a juror along with being the plaintiff. So we'll have different people that will be the jurors, and hopefully they'll be able to see the sky's blue. Well, how do you like your chances at trial? This case, put the counterclaims to the side for the moment that you guys have against Blake. You will go to trial on her claims against Justin if you guys don't settle. So how do you like your chances of prevailing in front of a jury on those?

Truth, facts, both on our side. I mean, I love our case of prevailing on the truth and the real facts of what happened. I mean, there's real time evidence in this case. I mean, you heard Justin on the voice note. You heard what he was going through. You know, we've we've seen the birthing video, right, that the screenshot that Jamie showed, you know, to Blake and didn't even play the video. I mean, it's it's it's there like that's not pornography. You know, when you famous Supreme Court justice said, you know, you'll know pornography when you see it. I don't think a birthing scene where where no one is unclothed is pornography. I mean, you've seen her say that she, you know, had, you know, was unclothed in, you know, with barely a patch on her. And we know there are, you know, that she was wearing those shorts.

You know, this stuff is not new. We've gone through the facts and truth is on our side. The facts are on our side. I love, not like, love our chances. What are the chances now, Brian, of a settlement in light of the ruling on her emotional distress claims and the ruling on your defamation and related counterclaims?

Look, from the beginning, you know, the chances of settlement were next to zero when you add the parties that are involved in this. You know, Justin, you know, while he would have liked to get, you know, millions of dollars to compensate him for his damages as a result of the defamation. That that was always secondary to showing that there was no sexual harassment.

That's it. I mean, when you're accused of something wrongfully, when you have to prove your innocence in order to continue to work. There are very little choices here. So he is going to go all the way and get that adjudication and fight this fight forever. And whether that means appeals or anything else, he's going to make sure that the world knows that he did not engage in sexual harassment, period, end of story. Can you say that you're already there? I mean, I think there's a very strong argument to be made that he's already won that battle. He's, she's Amber Heard in the eyes of at least half, if not more of the country. This has been an interesting case because it didn't divide along left-right lines. This is much like Meghan Markle. Blake Lively has managed

to unite the right and the left against her. Trust me, I know because I hear from them. And I wonder to myself, Brian, whether Justin's already won that victory and whether as a result he's interested interested if the opportunity is there anyway in making the litigation just go away now. Right. Well, I don't think he's won that battle yet. I think what he's done is he's put evidence out and he's put truth out and people have made their own determinations, which, you know, seemingly have only one

determination that you can make if you've actually looked at the facts and the evidence. But I don't think he's he's gotten that moment where, you know, where a court and a jury of his peers say, no, no, no, this is not sexual harassment. And I don't think look, I don't think tag the PR team with Melissa Nathan and her team, their team of people that literally have nothing to do with this. They're just, you know, individuals. And Jen Abel, who's been just trashed after, you know, taking her phone. And I think these people want to be absolved on a public level from a jury of their peers. I think it's really important that that happen, especially when someone goes around, you know, making victory tours without,

you know, without regard to whatever the real result is. I mean, you saw victory tours when they lost the emotional distress claims, right? Like you saw a victory tour then. So, you know, again, people are showing you who they are. Believe them. So you say he's in it to the jury verdict? Yes. Wow.

Wow. That's not good for her. She's not going to want that. I think she already likely regrets having started this hornet's nest as much as she wants to play the victim at the time 100 and everywhere else. Let me, if you don't mind, can I just ask you, because you're like the Waldo of litigation, Brian, your name comes up in cases I didn't even know you had a hand in. I'm just covering them as a reporter. I'm like, he's there too.

Like the Diddy trial, where I think you were representing Capricorn Clark, one of the witnesses for the prosecution who took the stand. And I just wonder, and maybe you can't say anything, but any thoughts on how that trial is going? You know, I have a lot of thoughts. It's, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's interesting how the case is going. And, you know, I look, I think a lot of things are really interesting. We're moving into a world of AI where you're going to look at a video, you could do it now,

and you're not going to know what's real or what's not real. I mean, some of the news feeds that I see are inaccurate and not real. And, you know, sometimes, you know, people do apologize for things. I think I was surprised that Diddy came out and apologized nationally for the video in the hotel where he was brutally beating Cassie. And I think that changed the nature of the case. The case then became about, okay, I can be an abuser. I can deal with domestic violence and getting into fights like that. But that's where I draw the line. I don't drug or rape people and and, you know, and do those. And I'm not involved in an organized organized crime unit and things like that.

And it'll be interesting to see where that case ends up. But, you know, Capricorn Clark is is an incredible person, really truthful, really interesting. And, you know, and look, you know, all someone can ask for is a real jury of their peers to make a decision. And he's got an opportunity to do that. He's got great lawyers and he's got, you know, a good team. And the jury will make a decision based on what's happened in the courtroom. And I don't know exactly what's happened. So I just read the papers like everyone else or hear from friends that are lawyers or involved in the case. But I don't know per se. Capricorn did a good job, in my opinion, on the stand.

And she was important because she was his assistant for years and testified that he brought her with him over to Kid Cudi's house when he allegedly burgled it and then later is accused of having launched a Molotov cocktail into it. And she provided a lot of the details that I'm sure it was scary to get up there and talk about. All right, last one. Menendez, you're in that too. Our friend Mark Garagos comes on and talks to me about it from time to time. And you're on the side of representing, I think, some family members of Jose Menendez who would like to see the boys released.

And it looks like things are, they took one step closer to potentially getting them out. But what's happening with the Menendez brothers? And do you think that they will be released early? What's happening with the Menendez brothers? And do you think that they will be released early? Um, you know, what's happening is that, that they have been resentenced, um, which is phenomenal. I mean, you know, rarely do you see the 27 family members who are all on the side of enough is enough. Um, they should be released. You know, rarely do you see that.

Those, you know, remember the family members aren't just family members of, you know, Lyle and Eric, they're family members of Jose and Kitty. So they are victims. And as victims, they say enough is enough. It's time to release them. The judge, you know, Jessup, who is an incredible judge, and he saw right through all of this and and resentenced them.

They have an opportunity now to go in front of the parole board, which the you know, which is going to happen in August. And then we'll we'll see what happens from there. optimistic for the family that they're going to have a chance to have, you know, holiday meals, you know, maybe even spend, you know, you know, New Year's Day and New Year's Eve with their family and be together for the first time in over 35 years. And I'm really hopeful that they have that opportunity. All right. What is more likely to happen? Sean Combs gets acquitted. The Menendez brothers are home in time for New Year's Eve or Justin is found not liable. So that's, you know, that's going to happen at some point. You didn't put a timetable on that one. But but they they I truly believe that the Menend to get their wish and that this family can start on a course of repair. Wow. You're a busy man. I love watching you. I love seeing you so successful, Brian. And I think Justin Baldoni has been very well served. I look forward to you continuing to do exactly that. Thanks for coming on. You know, Megan, I am so happy with where you are in your career and where you are personally right now.

It's one of the most special things I've ever been a part of in my entire career. And I'm just like I am so grateful to be in a position to be able to help people who have suffered injustice and that's really important to me. And you just, you're a star and I love you, truly. Oh, thank you, Brian. And you know, it's mutual. I love you. Doug loves you.

Denise too, we all love you guys. And it's one of those things where not only did you help me out of the most challenging and awful chapter of my career, but, and I've talked to so many of your other clients who say the same thing. You helped me believe in myself again. You actually helped me believe there was a way back that this lowest moment would not define me, that we were not going to let these bastards ruin everything. And I've seen you do that for so many others, including Sage Steele and Mike Davis, and the list goes on and on. And to watch you now doing it for Justin is so

heartening. And it's one of the reasons why I believe, I believe it will happen for him too. I don't think he's a wrongdoer. I don't think he's some evil person. I think she has serious problems. That's my own opinion. She's got some real problems and she's working them out on him publicly. So thank God he has you. Hey, so I do want to tell you, Doug says hi and was thrilled that we were doing this. And just again, thanks for doing it. I know you're not given a lot of these and I'm always grateful. Well, you know what? Doug's phenomenal. You know, Doug is my role model as a husband. So that's why I love him. He's still crushing it.

In fact, just over my laptop computer, I was watching Doug go into the ocean with Yates. Doug's living his best life right now, Brian. He's not dealing with 12B6 motions. He's having a great time. No, but he's a talented author. And that's, you know, that can be just as hard as 12B6 motions. True. True. Next one's coming out soon. All right. Much love. See you soon, I hope. Thank you.

Brian Friedman, everyone, the one and only. Man, if you get in a jam, that's the man to call for all sorts of reasons. Incredible lawyer, even better man. Just an honor to have him on and to know him. Okay, I made it 24 hours into my vacation, not even without having to come back on. It's always a possibility. And I bring this whole setup with me. I mean, right now I'm in like our little hotel bedroom.

I've got my mic, which I travel with. I've got my little computer. I've got my mic, which I travel with. I've got my little computer. I've got my laptop. And I don't know, whatever. Radar's my tech guy. He sends me with a bunch of stuff just in case, just in case. Then I talked to Brian and he said he'd do it. And, you know, he hasn't talked to anybody about this.

He gave like one paper statement to a couple of media outlets. And I've been dying to hear his thoughts. So anyway, thank you for coming back with us. You heard my legal analysis of this case, my own personal legal analysis earlier and on a separate program that we dropped right before this one in our feed. And now you heard Brian's take on it and also his plans. I mean, really, there was a lot of news in there. Full steam ahead. Right to verdict, no settlement discussions. They're not interested in settling. And that Blake Lively could be getting deposed as soon as June.

And he left the door open for Ryan Reynolds. And if you listen carefully, potentially a Taylor Swift deposition there too. So it's not over, not by a long shot. He does not think that Justin Baldoni has been served the righteous verdict in the public opinion that he deserves, nor have the other defendants. You know, there are, he was mentioning the PR people who were helping Justin when this was bubbling up into a PR crisis and they were still shooting the movie. And those two have been very attacked, very much attacked by Blake Lively and her team and the Times for that matter. And I'm sure they would like their day in court. So in any event, this thing will keep going. And right now they have a trial date. I believe it's March of 26. So we shall see. Will she,

if it's going to settle before that, I don't know how. I don't think Justin Baldoni will be paying any money to her. And I don't think she wants to walk away because that telegraphs the wrong thing. So stay tuned. Okay, I'm going back to vacay. I don't think I'll be seeing you immediately. Let's hope, because I actually would like to do some swimming

and see the fam. So lots of love to you guys too. And I'll see you soon. Bye. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show.'s birthday, honoring freedom, resilience, and financial independence. To mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off all services through July 4th. If you are dealing with back taxes or you missed the April 15th tax deadline, don't wait because the IRS is rapidly stepping up enforcement. Penalties can

add up quickly, up to 5% per month, maxing out at 25% of your total tax bill just for filing, for not filing. That's on top of what you already owe. It's stressful, but there's good news. Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around. It's not too late for you. Whether you are self-employed, run a business, or your books are just a complete mess, their team knows how to cut through the chaos and find solutions that work. Your consultation is always free and getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties,

wage garnishments, or surprise bank levies. Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Megan. That's 10% off all services through July 4th as part of their celebration of our nation's birthday. Regain control of your finances with expert help from Tax Network USA. You were on top of your bills and then inflation hit. Groceries, gas, everything shot up. Prices are up 26% from just a few years ago. 26%. Let me share a smarter, faster, far easier way out of debt. It's called done with debt. And they're not like other debt relief companies. They don't push loans or bankruptcy on you.

Done with debt, they have negotiators who go head to head with your credit card and load companies. They have one goal to drastically reduce or eliminate your debt altogether. And unlike others, done with debt can move lightning fast. Most clients see more money in their pocket month one. But a word to the wise, hurry, because some of their brilliant debt-erasing strategies are time-sensitive. Do not make another bill payment until you speak with a Done With Debt strategist. It's free. Visit donewithdebt.com. That's donewithdebt.com, donewithdebt.com.